Lucky~9~Lives
stealthmongoose
Lucky~9~Lives
stealthmongoose
Lucky~9~Lives
Again: according to your
definition about what constitutes knowledge. From the Sikh point of view, what is not being explored in this case is not believed to be knowledge - it is unknowable.
Same difference.
stealthmongoose
It is at worst unknown, i wouldn't say much of anything is unknowable.
Because you don't believe it.
stealthmongoose
What is in this world is explorable and knowable. Want to know the origin of corn? How about bananas? Us? The great apes themselves?
The exact position and momentum of a particle at a given time?
1. Belief without evidence is not knowledge.
That's just shifting the problem, not solving it; what constitutes evidence is also a belief.
stealthmongoose
2. The capacity for something to be known or unknown does not depend on my initial belief.
The capacity to know depends on your belief about what knowledge is.
stealthmongoose
I think you should retract that statement and cease presuming my views on reality.
Pardon me for presuming your beliefs match what you say; so, you wouldn't say much of anything is unknowable, but you believe much of anything is unknowable?
stealthmongoose
Regardless of my initial belief on what the sun consisted of, it's nature was still there. I did not believe in math before it was taught to me. It is not because of a lack of belief that things are unknown, but rather a lack of observation as well as material obstacles (Like the atmosphere or tuition).
Again, irrelevant - I'm not talking about the nature of the subject of a proposition (something that can be known), but the nature of propositions themselves (what constitutes knowledge).
stealthmongoose
3. As long as you're shooting for that which is unknown, you should review that which already is known. Can you demonstrate that knowledge and facts acquired are untrue in and of themselves when related to all of the other truly demonstrable things in our universe? Never mind that, let me address your question quite simply...
We're getting there, and until then belief has nothing to do with the truth or reality of a thing.
As above, that is irrelevant; quite simply - under the Sikh view, there's nowhere to get to. It's unknown
a priori, like "how many kilos in a meter"?
stealthmongoose
Of course, if your beliefs trump these truths, then please, demonstrate through evidence how your beliefs can trump reality and by that virtue attain the status of knowledge? Or is knowledge something that is so interwoven with reality that you need to omit truths and operate using ignorance to assert it's association with belief? Can you turn water into wine without resorting to emptying a bag of kool-aid and cheap merlot into it? Can you turn that hard rock into rubber by hoping and praying day by day that it won't hurt when you hurl it at someone? Can you make the sun stop beaming it's rays straight into your face by simply willing it to go away?
Can you forget or deny something and then pretend it isn't real? Does that stop it from touching you? Surrounding you? Making you bleed when it pricks you? Making you laugh when it tickles you?
Again: I'm not arguing that believing a box is not blue makes said box not blue - I'm arguing that believing it cannot be known what colour a box is makes the colour of said box not knowledge.
Many people coming together and deciding that the color of a box cannot be unknown does not make it less knowledge for anyone else.
Knowledge is not something that is pliable in that way. What you're talking about is ignoring the obvious, not belief in something that makes everything else unknowable.
In what ways is acknowledging a knowable thing as unknowable through belief different from ignoring it's nature for what it is?